The Rusyn language is
considered one of the newest Slavic literary languages. Together with
Russian, Belarusan, and Ukrainian, Rusyn is an East Slavic language that
functions as the national language of Carpatho-Rusyns, a stateless
people living within a historic territory called Carpathian Rus’.

Historic Carpathian Rus’
refers to lands within present-day southeastern Poland (the Lemko
Region), northeastern Slovakia (the Prešov Region), far western Ukraine
(the Transcarpathian oblast), and the north central Romania (Maramures,).
There are also a few communities of Rusyn speakers in northeastern
Hungary, northern Serbia (Vojvodina), and far northeastern Croatia
(Srem). The number of Rusyn-speakers and/or persons who identify as
Rusyns in the above-noted countries ranges from an official figure
(according to recent census data, 2001-2002) of 90,500 to unofficial
estimates that are as high as 890,000. 1

The current status
and present challenges facing the Rusyn language are in part a function
of the group’s complicated evolution as a stateless people living since
the late eighteenth century in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and from
1918 to 1989 in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and
Romania. During this entire period Carpatho-Rusyns, regardless of the
state in which they lived, struggled to find an appropriate literary
language. The problem in one sense was straightforward: (1) to create a
literary language based on the local Carpatho-Rusyn vernacular; or (2) to adopt a
related and already codified Slavic language (Russian or Ukrainian). The
debates about such choices came to be known as the language question (языковый
вопрос),
which, in turn, was intimately related to another challenge, the
nationality question. In other words, did Carpatho-Rusyns form a
distinct nationality, or were they a branch of the Russian or Ukrainian
nationalities?

Historical background

The secondary
literature about the language question among Carpatho-Rusyns is quite
extensive and the problem need be discussed at any length here.2
It might be useful, however, to mention briefly
the challenges faced during five chronological periods from the year
1848 to the present. I use 1848 as a starting point because it is from
that year that some form of the Rusyn language became legally possible
for use in the media, cultural life, education, and eventually
governmental affairs. Debates among intellectual leaders could and did
continue as before, but after 1848 the language question took on a
practical dimension. Since the governing authorities approved the view
that local languages should be used as a medium in schools, it was
necessary to decide on the specific form of the a literary language
before textbooks could be published and teaching in schools could begin.

During the first period,
1848 to 1918, when all of Carpathian Rus’ was under the rule of Habsburg
Austria-Hungary, two trends developed.3
The Rusyn intelligentsia generally favored the
adoption of Russian as an appropriate literary language, although in
practice publications and school instruction were conducted in the
so-called traditional Carpatho-Rusyn language, that is, Russian mixed
with varying degrees of Church Slavonic and Rusyn dialect. At the same
time, the Hungarian government (during its short-lived tolerant phase
toward national minorities) favored the use of local Rusyn vernacular as
the basis for a distinct literary language. 4

During the second period, lasting from
1919 to 1938, Carpatho-Rusyns found themselves within the borders of two
countries: Czechoslovakia and Poland. This period proved to be the most
productive for Carpatho-Rusyn cultural life, and it was particularly
complex period regarding the language question. In Czechoslovakia, where
a portion of that country’s Carpatho-Rusyn inhabitants had their own
autonomous province called Subcarpathian Rus’, three languages were in
competition for acceptance as the group’s literary standard: Russian,
Ukrainian, and Subcarpathian Rusyn. In neighboring Poland, among Lemko
Rusyns, the same three language orientations existed, although with
lesser intensity than in Czechoslovakia. For their part, the
Czechoslovak and Polish governments initially tried to remain neutral on
language matters, but by the 1930s both seemed to favor the Rusyn
orientation.

The third period, 1939 to
1944, basically coincided with World War II. In the Rusyn-inhabited
Lemko Region, at the time ruled by Nazi Germany, the Ukrainian
orientation was officially favored. In Hungary, which annexed
Subcarpathian Rus’, part of the Prešov Region from Slovakia, Maramures,
from Romania, and the Vojvodina from Yugoslavia, the authorities
rejected the Russian language, banned Ukrainian, and supported what was
called the Uhro-Rusyn language. In effect, Rusyn vernacular was given
official status as a literary language and was used in government
documents, civic affairs, and for school instruction.5

The fourth period, which
lasted from 1945 to 1989, coincided with the dominant presence of Soviet
rule not only in Subcarpathian Rus’, which was annexed to Soviet
Ukraine, but also through Communist proxies in neighboring countries
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania which ruled over smaller parts of
Carpathian Rus’. The Soviet regime proclaimed that it had resolved the
nationality question.6
All Carpatho-Rusyns, regardless what they called themselves, were
simply declared to be of Ukrainian nationality. That being the case,
Carpatho-Rusyns should have only one literary language to represent
their nationality—Ukrainian. In practice, the Russian orientation also
survived (and in Czechoslovakia even flourished until 1951), since
Russian was the dominant language of prestige throughout the Soviet
Union and was a required school subject in neighboring Communist-ruled
countries where Rusyns also lived. On the other hand, the Rusyn language
and nationality orientation were banned in all countries where
Carpatho-Rusyns lived with one exception. That exception was Yugoslavia,
which was Communist-ruled but soon outside the Soviet bloc. There Rusyns
were recognized as a distinct nationality and their Vojvodinian
(Bac(ka-Srem) variant of Rusyn was allowed to develop into a distinct
and sociologically complete literary language.

The fifth period began in
1989 and continues to the present. The Revolutions of the 1989 and the
collapse of dictatorial Communist rule resulted in what has come to be
known as the third Carpatho-Rusyn national revival. In all countries
where Carpatho-Rusyns live, they have once again been allowed to
identify as a distinct nationality. A portion of Carpatho-Rusyns decided
to return to the nationality of their ancestors and in the new post-1989
political environment they have been permitted to publish materials in
the Rusyn language and to use the language in public discourse.

Achievements since
1989

In the wake of the
political changes initiated by the Revolutions of 1989, what have been
the achievements of Rusyns in the realm of language? In one sense, the
decades-old language question did not go away. Rusyn speakers remained
divided between those who favored the creation of a distinct literary
language, those who favored Ukrainian, and still a few who favored
Russian. The rest of this essay will look at the achievements and point
out some of the challenges still faced by language planners who have not
only created but who continue to develop the four variants of literary
Rusyn.

The first challenge faced
by the post-1989 language planners was to determine how to create a
literary standard. Several options were possible: (1) adopt an earlier
Rusyn standard, such as those used in the grammars of Ivan Haraida
(1941), Ivan Pan’kevych (1922), or Avhustyn Voloshyn (1907 and 1927)7;
(2) formulate a new standard based on the main dialects in one region,
such as Subcarpathian Rus’, where the largest number of Rusyn speakers
reside; or (3) create a koiné, or single standard based on input
from all regions where Rusyn is spoken. In fact, none of these options
was chosen.

Instead, in
November 1992 a representative group of writers, journalists, and
scholars from all countries (except Romania) where Rusyns live—Poland,
Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, and former Yugoslavia—met at what came to be
known as the First Congress of the Rusyn Language. Together with Rusyn
and non-Rusyn scholars from abroad, the language congress debated
several theoretical options and adopted a practical methodology. At the
suggestion of Professor Paul Robert Magocsi the so-called Romansch
principle was adopted. In other words, Rusyn language planners were
called upon to follow the example of the Romansch people of Switzerland,
who in the course of the twentieth century first codified five regional
variants and then formulated a koiné, that is, an amalgamated
standard intended to serve all regions.8
Analogously, Rusyns would develop four regional variants
(Subcarpathian, Prešov Region, Lemko Region, Vojvodina), all the while
keeping in mind that they would eventually create a fifth variant, i.
e., a koiné for all regions. The participants at the First
Language Congress also accepted the principle that each of the four
variants should be based on the spoken vernacular of the given region.9

How has theory been
transformed into practice? First, it should be mentioned that the task
faced by Rusyn language planners was made somewhat easier, since one of
the projected regional variants, Vojvodinian (Bac(ka-Srem) Rusyn, already
existed as a standard literary form used by the Rusyns of former
Yugoslavia, today Serbia-Montenegro and Croatia.10
With regard to the other three regions, Rusyn language planners (not in
all cases professional linguists) set out to publish rule-books,
grammars, dictionaries, and school texts as part of the standardization
project.

The first of the
new Rusyn variants to be standardized was in the Prešov Region of
Slovakia. In January 1995, the Prešov Region literary standard was
proclaimed to exist11
following the appearance of a rule-book by Vasyl’ Jabur, an orthographic
dictionary, and a dictionary of grammatical terminology.12
Since that time a cycle of 26 textbooks has been published. They
represent the Prešov Region standard to teach language and literature in
classes 1 through 9 of elementary school and classes 1 through 4 of
secondary (seredna) school. Most recently a revised edition of
the standard rule-book has appeared.13

The second Rusyn variant
to be standardized was for the Lemko Region in Poland. In the year 2000,
a grammar of the Lemko language was published by Henryk Fontan'ski and
Miros?awa Chomiak.14
The Fontan'ski-Chomiak grammar serves as the standard for a few other
school textbooks as well as a Lemko-Polish dictionary by Jaros?aw
Horoszczak that have also apeared.15

More complicated have
been the efforts to create a standardized Subcarpathian variant for
Rusyns in the Transcarpathian oblast of Ukraine. In 1994, a four-member
language commission representing the local Aleksander Dukhnovych
Cultural Society began work on a grammar that was expected to provide
the basis for a standardized regional variant. Written primarily by Igor
Kercha and Stefan Popovych (neither of whom were linguists by training),
the Subcarpathian grammar was indeed published in 1999, but it was not
accepted by a large number of authors in the region, including some
members of the commission under whose name it was published.17
Consequently, other language publications in Subcarpathian Rus’, which
include a few dictionaries and books designed for use in schools, have
followed the “standard” of their given author or publisher.[xvii]
In 2005, the priest Dymytrii Sydor published another grammar (written in
Rusyn and English) intended not only for use by “the Rusyns of Ukraine”
but also by those in “Central Europe and America.”18

Present challenges

When, in 1995, the
codification of the Rusyn language was proclaimed in Slovakia, its
creators and supporters were wise to point out that their declaration
was only the beginning of an on-going process. This makes eminent sense,
since literary languages do not suddenly come into existence; rather,
they are living entities which continually evolve and develop. What are
some of the challenges that face the Rusyn language at the present? I
would suggest that there are two kinds of challenges which are separate
but related: those at the regional level, and those pertaining to the
projected all-Rusyn koiné.

Not surprisingly, it is
at the regional level that the Rusyn language has made its greatest
advances since the First Language Congress of 1992. In all four regions
some form of a standard language is used in schools (from elementary to
university level), in churches,19 in
publications and the media, and in some cases in official government
documents.

One of the principles
accepted from the outset was to create regional variants on the basis of
the local spoken vernacular. Since each region has several dialects, the
regional literary variant by definition represents a form of language
based on one or more dialects within the given region, that is, a kind
of mini-regional koiné. For instance, the Prešov Region variant
in Slovakia is based primarily on the “eastern” dialects of the Laborec
valley, a decision which has caused displeasure among some writers from
the central (Sharysh) and western (Spish) areas of the Prešov Region.
Dialectal differentiation is one of the reasons why language planners in
Subcarpathian Rus’ not have been able to agree on a standard regional
literary variant. Disagreements persist among supporters of the eastern
(Maramorosh), central, and western (Uzh) dialects.

Another problem
concerns borrowings from other languages. Since, in principle, each
literary variant is to be based on the spoken vernacular of a given
region—which means, in effect, the present-day spoken
vernacular—language planners have had to face the practical reality that
spoken Rusyn, depending on region, has since World War II been heavily
infiltrated by a high number of Polish, Slovak, Ukrainian, Russian, and
Serbian borrowings. For instance, Rusyn readers in neighboring counties,
when they pick up a Rusyn text published in Slovakia, often think they
are reading the Slovak language written in the Cyrillic alphabet. What,
for instance, should be done with words like: вызкум
(Slovak: výskum), влак
(vlak), обход (obchod),
розлучка (rozlúc(ka),
сполочность (spoloc(nost’),
скусенность (skúsenost’),
таёмник (tajomník),
узнесіня
(úznesenie)? Should such borrowings be left in individual Rusyn literary
variants because they are part of the present-day spoken vernacular, or
should they be replaced. And, if replaced, replaced by what: (1)
international words (usually based on Latin or English and French
derivatives); (2) older Rusyn/East Slavic words; or (3) newer
East-Slavic sounding calques, which would then be taught in schools
until they became part of a future Rusyn spoken vernacular?

Geographic
terminology is also problematic and there are some basic methodological
questions that still need to resolved. Should placenames outside
Carpathian Rus’ be given Rusyn equivalents—Краків,
Пряшів, Словакія—or should they be
transliterated into the Rusyn Cyrillic alphabet according to
pronunciation in the original language—Кракув
(Polish: Kraków), Прешов (Slovak:
Prešov), Словеньско (Slovak:
Slovensko)? Perhaps new Rusyn forms should be
created, such as Новоє місто пуд Шатром instead
of Шаторалйауйгей (Hungarian: Sátoraljaújhely),
or Калный Потук instead of Шарошпатак (Hungarian:
Sárospatak).20

While much work has been
undertaken on regional variants of literary Rusyn, less attention has
been given to common concerns and the eventual creation of a koiné.
The first Congress of the Rusyn language (1992) called upon future
congresses to meet periodically to discuss issues related to a koiné.
Only one other Rusyn language congress was held, in 1999, and while it
did discuss a common problem (the need to produce a volume on the Rusyn
language for the international Slavic Commission based in Opole,
Poland),21 it
did not address any specific linguistic issues pertaining to
codification.

As a result, Rusyns
do not use a common grammatical terminology, with some regions referring
to часослово (Lemko variant,
Prešov variant), others to глагол (Subcarpathia), or дієслово
(Vojvodina) for the same part of speech—the
verb. There is not even a common Rusyn alphabet with some letters not
appearing in all variants (ы and i do not exist in
Vojvodinian, їdoes not exist in Lemko variant), other
letters only in one region (ёin the Prešov
variant; ō in
one Subcarpathian dictionary; ±
in one Subcarpathian
grammar); and one letter in a different alphabetical order (ы
follows иin the Lemko and Prešov
variant, but after щ in one Subcarpathian
dictionary). Most problematic is the grapheme used to depict various
vowels that replaced the phoneme o in newly-closed syllables. A
classic example of this phenomenon exists in Subcarpathian dialects for
the word that originally existed as конь,
but has come to be pronounced as кунь,
кüнь, кінь,
кынь. None of these variants
predominates throughout the Subcarpathian dialectal areal. Actually, the
problem of how to depict these various phonemes was addressed by
Subcarpathian grammarians in the first half of the twentieth century and
resolved by using only one grapheme, either ô (Avhustyn Voloshyn and Ivan Pan’kevych) or o
(Ivan Haraida).22
Unfortunately, present-day Rusyn language planners in Subcarpathian Rus’
have tried “to re-invent the wheel”, so that virtually every grammar and
dictionary has introduced one or more letters with symbols added—î,
ō, á,
ÿ, ü, ô—in an
attempt to indicate different dialectal
variants of pronunciation. The result for the reader is graphic chaos
and semantic confusion. Just as linguists in Ukraine have called upon
their countrymen to honor the letter ґ, which they have recently
reintroduced into official Ukrainian orthography,23
so, too, might Rusyn language planners be well advised to render
appropriate honor to the letter ô and to re-introduce it into
Rusyn orthography.

Another kind of
semantic confusion concerns the ethnonym Rusyn itself. Traditionally,
Carpatho-Rusyns described themselves with the formulation: Я руськый,
or Я бісідую/говорю
по-руськы. Moreover, every grammar of the
Rusyn language that appeared before 1945 referred to the rus’kyi
iazŷk. At present, two of the four variants of the Rusyn literary
language preserve the historically correct adjectival form of the
ethnonym: руски (Vojvodinian)
and руській (Lemko
variant) to describe their own people. The two other variants (Prešov
Region and Subcarpathian) use руськый as an adjective not to describe their own people
but rather to describe Great Russians. By contrast the Vojvodinian and
Lemko Region variants correctly prefer differentiation, as in російскій язык; Росиян (Lemko
Region) and русийски язык (Vojvodina).[xxiv]
Perhaps a language is really in trouble when it cannot even decide on
the appropriate ethnonym for the people it allegedly represents.

Let us not, however,
overestimate the problems related to codifying the Rusyn language. In
fact, Rusyn language planners, belletrists, and journalists have made
enormous strides in the standardization process which, should not be
forgotten, began only fifteen years ago. The codifiers are well aware
that their work is not done. In fact, language codification is never
done. Perhaps some of the concerns raised here may help Rusyn-language
codifiers address these and other linguistic challenges that will
continue to face them in the years to come.

2For
the extensive literature on the language question see section of
the bibliography in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyn’skŷi jazŷk (Opole,
2004), pp.449-460.

3For a
useful introduction to the language question, see Pavel Robert
Magochii, “Jazykovŷi vopros,” in ibid., pp. 85-112; and
Aleksanndr D. Dulichenko and Paul Robert Magocsi, “Language
Question,” in
Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, eds., Encyclopedia of Rusyn
History and Culture,
2nd rev.
ed. (Toronto, 2005), pp.
276-281.

4
During the 1880s, the office of Hungary’s prime minister hired a
young university graduate of Rusyn background, Laslov Chopei, to
prepare several textbooks using the Rusyn vernacular that were
to be used in elementary schools. In conjunction with this work
Chopei prepared a Rusyn-Hungarian dictionary (20,000 words) that
was given a prestigious award from the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences and was published at government expense: Rus’ko
madiarskyi slovar’ (Budapest, 1883).

5
Initially, Hungarian policy was unclear. Local authorities
rejected an elementary school Russian-language grammar published
in 1939 by Georgii Gerovskii; then, in 1940, the administration
issued a Russian-language grammar (with local Rusyn elements)
that was prepared by a language commission headed by Vasylii
Sulynchak and approved by the ministerial advisor for education,
Iulii Maryna. Finally, in 1941 the government gave its full
support to the Subcarpathian Academy of Sciences, which
published a grammar based on the vernacular by Ivan Haraida,
which set the standard for what became a Rusyn literary
language.

6The
Soviet conviction was based on a declaration made in 1924 at the
Fifth Congress of the Comintern in Moscow and confirmed by the
Communist party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine in December 1925,
according to which the indigenous East Slavic population living
in what at the time was Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia was
considered ethnically and linguistically Ukrainian.

8A
representative from the Chair of Romansch Language at the
University of Fribourg in Switzerland was present at the First
Congress of Rusyn Language to share the experience of Romansch
language planners.

9For
details on the First Congress of Rusyn Language together with
the text of its resolutions, see Joshua A. Fishman and Paul
Robert Magocsi, “Scholarly Seminar on the Codification of the
Rusyn Language,” International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, No. 104 (Berlin and New York, 1993), pp. 119-123.

10The
Vojvodinian variant of Rusyn was first codified in a 1923
grammar by Havriïl Kostel’nik. After World War II, the standard
was based on several grammars and a rule-book (Pravopis ruskoho
iazika,1971) by Mikola M. Kochish, and most recently on an
authoritative grammar for gymnasium-level students (Grammatika
ruskoho iazika, 2002) by Iuliian Ramach.

11The proclamation
of a literary standard took place at a formal event in
Bratislava that included a scholarly conference. The entire
proceedings were later published in English and Slovak in Paul
Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavonic Language Is Born: The Rusyn
Literary Language of Slovakia/Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk:
rusínský spisovný jazyk na Slovensku (New York, 1996).

16 Materyns’kŷi
iazŷk: pysemnytsia
rusyns’koho iazŷka,
published simultaneously in (Mukachevo, 1999) and (Moscow,
1999). Aside from the main authors, Kercha and Popovych, the
other members of the commission included Mykhailo Almashii
and Vasyl’
Mol’nar.

19 Of
particular importance is the work of the Greek Catholic priest
in Slovakia, Frantishek Krainiak, who prepared a Rusyn-language
catechism in the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, Malŷi
grekokatolyts’kŷi katekhizm pro rusyns’kŷ dity (Prešov, 1992); a
book of gospel readings, Ievanheliia na nedili i svata tsiloho
roku (Medzilaborce, 1999); and a translation of the Gospel of
St. John, Ievanheliia od sviatoho Ioana (Medzilaborce, 2003),
all of which are authorized for use in the Greek Catholic
Eparchy of Prešov.

20 These were
among several placenames which were suggested by Igor’ Kercha
for use on maps in the history textbook, Nasha ottsiuznyna (see
above note 17); the forms were rejected, however, by the
publisher, Valerii Padiak.

21 At the
Second Congrees of the Rusyn Language, held in May 1999 in
conjunction with the opening of the Division (oddilennia) of
Rusyn Language and Culture at the Prešov University, a session
took place to discuss the table of contents and methodological
approach for what turned to be volume 14 in the series, Modern
History of Slavonic Languages, sponsored by the University of
Opole in Poland: Rusyn’skyi iazyk, ed. Paul Robert Magocsi (Opole,
2004).

22 For
references, see above, note 7. It is generally thought that the
letter ô was introduced into the Carpatho-Rusyn alphabet by the
Galician-Ukrainian linguist and pedagogue, Ivan Pan’kevych, in
his 1922 grammar. This is incorrect, since the ô was used
already by Avhustyn Voloshyn in his Rusyn grammar from as early
as 1907.